V. I. Lenin

R.S.D.L.P. Council.{1}May 31 and June 5 (June 13 and 18), 1904

MAY 31 AND JUNE 5 (JUNE 13 AND 18), 1904

Published:Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1977,

      Moscow,Volume 41,

      pages122.2-127.1.Translated:Yuri SdobnikovTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaCopyleft:V. I. Lenin Internet Archive (www.marxists.org)
      © 2004

      Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the
      terms of theGNU Free Documentation License.

REMARK ON THE AGENDA

MAY 31 (JUNE 13)

Le n i n

motions the addition to the list of items on the agenda of the question
raised by the Polish Socialist Party (P.P.S.) concerning the desirability
of calling a conference of R.S.D.L.P. and P.P.S. representatives to discuss
the basis and terms of joint struggle by the two parties.

SPEECHES ON AN INTER-PARTY
CONFERENCE{2}

MAY 31 (JUNE 13)

Isecond the proposal to invite both Latvian
organisations.{3}As for the Armenian federalist
organisation,{4}there can be no question of inviting it to the
conference after what Comrade Martov has said about its intimacy with the
Socialist-Revolutionaries. Furthermore, I don’t quite see the point of
Comrade Plekhanov’s insistent proposal of the need for an immediate reply
to the Finns.

Ithink it would be too much to demand unanimity in decisions on
questions of
principle.{5}I can’t see any of the Social-Democrats staying on if the
conference adopted some monstrous decision.

SPEECHES ON R.S.D.L.P. REPRESENTATION
AT THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONGRESS

MAY 31 (JUNE 13)

Ishould like to have an explanation as to whether it is convenient to
send delegates both from the Council and from the individual
organisations. Are there any similar examples in the practice of other
countries at earlier congresses?  I think this mode of representation is
somewhat inconvenient in terms of both principle and practice (from the
financial, technical and other standpoints). Would it not be better for the
Council to be represented there in corpore? I don’t see hew we could be
victimised. After all, our Party can’t be deprived of its vote!

SinceComrade Plekhanov says that we shall not be able to secure the
Party’s separate representation at the Congress, while the dispatch of a
large number of delegates to the Congress would cost a great deal, and
anyhow we shall not be able to match the Bundists in this respect, it would
be more dignified if the Council alone represented the Party at the
Congress.

Moreover,we shall hardly have time to contact all the organisations to
obtain their
mandates.{6}In view of this, I motion that in case of necessity the
Council should, with out contacting the individual organisations, be
empowered to represent each of them separately....

REMARK ON THE NEED OF CONTROL OVER THE GNCHAK
NEWSPAPER{7}

MAY 31 (JUNE 13)

Le n i n

seconds Comrade Martov’s proposal, remarking that there is need for control
over the publication of the Gnchak newspaper, which has not always been
Social-Democratic.

MOTION OF AMENDMENT TO MARTOV’S RESOLUTION ON THE RIGHT OF THE
C.O. AND THE C.C. TO RECALL THEIR REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE PARTY COUNCIL

JUNE 5 (18)

ComradeMartov remarked that he put forward his proposal regardless of
the concrete cases and merely to avoid conflicts in the future. That is why
I shall not refer to any concrete cases either and if the resolution is
designed exclusively to lay down a definite rule for the future, I shall
not argue against it. Perhaps it would be better to cut it down and reduce
it to the right of the collegium to recall its representatives, deleting
the sentence on non-responsibility to the Congress.

SPEECH ON CO-OPTATION TO THE COMMITTEES AND ON THE C. C.’S RIGHT TO
APPOINT NEW MEMBERS

JUNE 5 (18)

WhatMartov said was news to
me.{8}We have quite definite indications that the minority of the
Moscow Committee proposed the co-optation of one of its candidates,
without, however, connecting this question with factionaldifferences. Furthermore, speaking on the substance of the matter, I would
consider it more correct and more in the spirit of the Rules to regard
every fraction as a unit; nevertheless, this question is so insignificant
that I agree to vote for Comrade Martov’s resolution.

SPEECHES ON THE VOTING PROCEDURE IN DECIDING THE QUESTION OF CONVENING
THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P.

JUNE 5 (18)

Le n i n

joins Glebov in regarding the votes of the Tver and the Riga committees as
invalid,{9}and proposes that the organisations should be regarded as
existing not since the issue of their proclamations but since their
confirmation by the C.C. In addition, he says, the reference to the date of
the Congress should be deleted from Martov’s resolution. The rules of the
leagues will determine how many votes they are to have at the
Congress. Until their rules are approved, everything should remain as it
was at the Second Congress. For example, the Caucasian
League{10}should have six votes.

ComradeMartov and I essentially agree on the right of 9 committees in
voting on the Congress. The Baku Committee, I believe, should not have a
separate vote because it is a part of the Caucasian League. Inquiries
should be made about all the five leagues and then the relevant decisions
adopted.

Insubstance I would have nothing against Comrade Martov’s proposal,
but it would be formally
wrong.{11}The Congress has not confirmed them and, consequently, they
should be subject to the rule that they may vote for oragainst the Congress only after one year. There is the less reason to
discuss this, since the period has almost run out. But we should be very
careful about the Caucasian League:
they would be deeply mortified if we gave them only two votes instead of
the six they had. Moreover, I think that Comrade Martov tends to confuse
two points (eandf) of § 3 of the Rules, when he
proposes that leagues should be given the same status as committees. Thus,
I motion that we postpone the question of the Caucasian League and make
inquiries through the C.C.

Ijoin in Comrade Martov’s opinion concerning the Caucasian
League.{12}Then there is another juridical question of how the votes of
the Council are to be counted in a general count of the votes required for
the convocation of a congress. I think two interpretations would be
correct: either, in determining the required number of organisations, to
make the count without including the five votes of the Council in the
overall total of votes belonging to all the organisations, and then to
count each vote of the Council separately; or simply to take one-half of
the existing number of organisations, without the Council, and to reckon
this half as the number required in this case. I believe that it would be
most correct to count each of the Council’s votes separately.

SPEECHES ON THE QUESTION OF PUBLISHING THE MINUTES OF THE PARTY
COUNCIL SITTINGS

JUNE 5 (18)

Iabsolutely disagree with Comrade Martov. It is desirable to establish
for all the sittings of the Council the rule adopted on the minutes of the
last
sitting.{13}This publication will hardly be impeded by the requirements
of secrecy and it would be highly important for Party members toknow what is going on in the Party’s supreme body and the opinions which
are held there by both sides.

Iam very much surprised by Comrade Glebov’s raising the question of
the decision taken at the last sitting and his proposal to review it now. I
believe such a review is inadmissible, either formally or morally.

Nodecision on their publication has yet been taken by the C.C. and I
merely insist on the C.C.’srightto take such a decision,
whenever it deems it necessary to do
so.{14}

{1}The R.S.D.L.P Councilmet at Geneva on May 31 and June 5
(June 13 and 18), 1904, with V. I. Lenin, 0. V. Plekhanov (Chairman),
V. A. Noskov, P. B. Axelrod and L. Martov present. At its first sitting it
discussed the questions of calling an inter-party conference of
revolutionary and opposition organisations of Russia, and of the
forthcoming international congress at Amsterdam. The second sitting was
devoted to a discussion of internal Party questions: 1) the right of the
Party’s central bodies (C.C. and C.O.) to recall their representatives from
the Party Council; 2) co-optation to the committees and the Central
Committee’s right to seat new members on them; 3) procedure governing the
voting by Party organisations on the convocation of the Party’s Third
Congress; 4) publication of the minutes of Council sittings, etc.

Inview of the fact that three of the five Council members (Plekhanov,
Axelrod and Martov) represented the Menshevik opposition, while Noskov took
a conciliatory stand, the Party Council adopted Menshevik decisions on the
most important internal Party matters (for Lenin’s speeches at the
R.S.D.L.P. Council see present edition, Vol. 7, pp. 435–44).

p. 122

{2}The Inter-Party Conference of Opposition and Revolutionary
Organisations of Russia, called on the initiative of the Finnish Party
of Active Resistance, was held at the end of 1904. The representatives of
the R.S.D.L.P. and several other Social-Democratic parties and
organisations of Russia met at Amsterdam in August 1904, before the
International Socialist Congress opened, and decided not to attend the
inter-Party conference. For the R.S.D.L.P., this decision was approved by
the Party Council sitting on August 21 (September 3), 1904.

p. 122

{3}The Latvian Social-Democratic Labour Organisation of the Baltic
Areawas set up in April 1902 through the merger of several
Social-Democratic organisations. On its basis, the First Congress of
Latvian Social-Democratic Organisations, held from June 7 to 9 (20–22),
1904, set up the Latvian Social-Democratic Labour Party which joined the
R.S.D.L.P. at the Fourth (Unity) Congress in 1906.

TheLatvian Social-Democratic Union, set up in the autumn of
1900 abroad, was akin in its demands to the Russian
Socialist-Revolutionaries and was largely permeated with nationalistic
tendencies. In 1905, the Union gained some temporary influence among a
section of the peasants, but was soon ousted by the Latvian
Social-Democratic Labour Party. The Union subsequently played no noticeable
role of any kind.

p. 122

{4}A reference to theArmenian Social-Democratic Labour
Organisation(Specifics), which was set up by Armenian
national-federalist elements soon after the Second Congress of the
R.S.D.L.P. Like the Bundists, the Specifics wanted the Party organised on
thefederal principle, which implied a division of the proletariat on national
lines, and declared themselves to be the sole representatives of the
Armenian proletariat. They tried to justify their nationalism by referring
to the “specific conditions of each nation”. In a letter to the
R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee over the conference of Social-Democratic
organisations in Russia called for September 1905, Lenin wrote: “I
strongly warn you against the Armenian Social-Democratic Federation. If you
have agreed to its participation in the conference, you have made afatalmistake, which must be rectifiedat all costs. It
is represented in Geneva by a couple of disrupters who publish sheer trivia
here and have noseriousconnections with the Caucasus. It is aBund creatura, nothing more, specially Invented to cultivate
Caucasian Bundism.... All the Caucasian comrades are against this gang of
disruptive writers...” (see present edition, Vol. 34, p. 337).

p. 122

{5}A reference to Martov’s proposal at the first sitting of the Party
Council calling for the adoption of a resolution to have all decisions
involving principle, at the inter-party conference, adopted only
unanimously.

p. 122

{6}A remark Lenin made in connection with Martov’s resolution inviting all
Party organisations to send to the Party Council their mandates for the
Amsterdam Congress of the Second International, and also to submit reports
on local activity for the drawing up of a general report. Martov was
followed by Plekhanov who said there was no time to wait for local reports
and proposed that someone should be asked to draw up a report right away.

p. 123

{7}A reference to the newspaperVeratsnutyun(Renascence), organ
of the Gnchak, the Armenian petty-bourgeois nationalist party. It was
published in Rusčuk, Bulgaria, in 1903 and 1904.

p. 124

{8}A reference to Martov’s assertion that the minority of the Moscow
Committee had proposed the co-optation not of one but of two of their
members.

p. 124

{9}Under the Party Rules adopted by the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.,
only those organisations which had been confirmed not less than a year
before the congress enjoyed the right of representation on it. On the
strength of this, V. A. Noskov (Glebov) said at the second sitting of the
Party Council that the votes of the Tver and Riga committees were invalid
in deciding on the convocation of the Party’s Third Congress.

p. 125

{10}The Caucasian League of the R.S.D.L.P.was set up at the First
Congress of Caucasian Social-Democratic Organisations at Tiflis in March
1903, on the initiative of the Tiflis and the Baku commit tees of the
R.S.D.L.P. It was attended by 15 delegates from the Tiflis, Baku, Batum,
Kutais and other Social-Democratic organisations in Transcaucasia. It
elected the League’s 9-man governing body, the Caucasian Union Committee of
the R.S.D.L.P., and approved the political line of the LeninistIskra; it adopted asa basis for activity by Social-Democratic organisations in Trancaucasia the
draft Party programme worked out byIskraandZarya.

Atthe Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., there were three delegates
from the Caucasian League, who had been instructed to defend the programme,
organisational and tactical principles of the LeninistIskra. From
the outset, the Caucasian Union Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. established
close ties with Lenin and provided firm support for the Bolsheviks in their
struggle against the Menshevik opposition. The League took an active part
in preparing the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., and its representatives
were on the Majority Committees’ Bureau, which made the practical
preparations for the Third Congress. The League played an important part in
organising the labour movement in Transcaucasia before and during the first
revolution in Russia. It did a great service in educating the workers of
the multi-national Caucasus in the spirit of proletarian
internationalism. In February 1906, the League was dissolved in view of the
establishment of united committees of the Bolshevik and the Menshevik
factions.

p. 125

{11}A reference to Martov’s proposal at the second sitting of the Party
Council to give the Samara, Smolensk, Bryansk and Astrakhan committees the
same status as that accorded to those which had at tended the Congress,
that is, the right to vote in deciding on the convocation of a Party
congress.

p. 125

{12}Martov proposed that the Caucasian League should be given the right to
vote for a congress, as of September 1903, when its Rules had been
approved.

p. 126

{13}A reference to the decision taken by the January 1904 sitting of the
Party Council to publish the Council’s minutes.

p. 126

{14}On June 5 (18), 1904, the Party Council—by the votes of the
Mensheviks G. V. Plekhanov, L. Martov and P. B. Axelrod, and the
conciliator V. A. Noskov (Glebov)—decided against publishing the
Council’s minutes.

p. 127